Do you 'engage' with cyclists?

[heebeegeetee]

Finlandia said:

The difference being that you can avoid parking damage by choosing where you park, I don't have any on my 17 year old car, you can't avoid filtering cyclists or motorcyclists, but of course you know this too.

My wife, like many/most employees, can't realistically choose where she parks, because space is at such a premium.

I've managed to avoid damage by filtering cyclists in the near 40 years I've been driving.

ETA but you're the first person I've ever heard of who has avoided car park damage. My Boxster has very little damage because it is only used at weekends, but all other cars I've ever owned has. I don't know anyone who has avoided it.

I remember when I'd just had a full body respray on my MGB, and just after I got on a ferry and the car right beside me went bang with his door into mine. Because that's how they operate.

Edited by heebeegeetee on Wednesday 4th March 08:38

[JagXJR]

walm said:

JagXJR said:

Your hypothetical example will not happen because unlike some of you (obviously from some of the posts) I check my mirrors regularly.

Ah - so you check the mirrors as you approach the parked car and see some nutter on a motorcycle overtaking and you slam on the anchors to prevent squashing him... is that what you mean?

In other words, the cyclists SHOULD have stopped to let you finish your ill-thought-out overtake.

Did I say that? No so why are you putting words in my mouth? What is your egenda?

For the delusional, trolls and those with an agenda, again - there was no "ill-thought-out overtake". All thought out in advance all perfectly legal

[JagXJR]

MrTrilby said:

JagXJR said:

I overtook many vehicles which were approaching an obstruction a quarter of a mile...

...Since I have had advanced driving tuition (I could claim to have passed the test but that would be untrue despite getting to the standard required to be able to) I am quite capable of reasoning things out before they surprise me .

One of those two statements you made doesn't ring true. I'm pretty sure that to an advanced motorist, anticipating that a vehicle in front of you will move out to pass an obstruction, and that they may have to slow down and hence close up the gap you were intending to pull back in to, would suggest that it's a really stupid place to be overtaking.

I would suggest you don't know what you are talking about, as you were not there. Which is a really stupid thing to do.

It was perfectly safe to overtake, I sounded my horn to avoid it becoming unsafe. Acted in the interests of another road user and got a load of abuse for it, both on the road and on here.

And you wonder why I think SOME cyclists are muppets?

[walm]

JagXJR said:

There was no "ill-thought-out overtake". All thought out in advance all perfectly legal

Roll your eyes all you like but when someone passes a cyclist and has to honk at them because it was "a little tight" and if they fell off you would hit them - THAT IS NOT A LEGAL OVERTAKE.
It is ill-thought-out.
For the last time this is the MOST IMPORTANT RULE (163) in this situation.
There is even a picture to help the hard of thinking.

YOU DID NOT LEAVE ENOUGH ROOM.
THIS WAS BAD DANGEROUS DRIVING.
If a cyclist had fallen you would quite rightly be going to jail.



You can go on about how we weren't there but if you left this much room - THERE WAS NO NEED TO HONK.
OR you didn't leave enough room.
You can't have it both ways.

Would you have done what you did on your driving test?
Would you have done what you did in front of a police car?
Would you have done what you did on the advanced driving test you never took?

It is not defensive driving.
It was aggressive and dangerous.

What is worse is that rather than try to learn from your mistakes and think twice about endangering vulnerable road users you come on not one but TWO threads to bh about cyclist.
Very very poor behaviour all round.

Of course they should have shoulder checked (not sure what difference it would have made, but still) and they should not have gestured at you.
BUT YOU ENDANGERED THEIR LIVES.

Which behaviour is worse.

Honestly you are a great example of the absolute idiocy and arrogance that causes so much unnecessary danger every day on our roads.

[walm]

JagXJR said:

I sounded my horn to avoid it becoming unsafe.

How exactly did that work?

Did the horn magically widen the road??
Did it make your Jag thinner?
Did it transport you back behind the cyclists where you should have been?

[WinstonWolf]

JagXJR said:

MrTrilby said:

JagXJR said:

I overtook many vehicles which were approaching an obstruction a quarter of a mile...

...Since I have had advanced driving tuition (I could claim to have passed the test but that would be untrue despite getting to the standard required to be able to) I am quite capable of reasoning things out before they surprise me .

One of those two statements you made doesn't ring true. I'm pretty sure that to an advanced motorist, anticipating that a vehicle in front of you will move out to pass an obstruction, and that they may have to slow down and hence close up the gap you were intending to pull back in to, would suggest that it's a really stupid place to be overtaking.

I would suggest you don't know what you are talking about, as you were not there. Which is a really stupid thing to do.

It was perfectly safe to overtake, I sounded my horn to avoid it becoming unsafe. Acted in the interests of another road user and got a load of abuse for it, both on the road and on here.

And you wonder why I think SOME cyclists are muppets?

You sounded the horn to make it safe

Seriously?

[JagXJR]

Antony Moxey said:

JagXJR said:

I overtook many vehicles which were approaching an obstruction a quarter of a mile (ish didn't pace it out) away

Why were you attempting an overtake of slow moving traffic if you could see there was an obstacle ahead? Unless you were sure you could complete the overtake before you reached the obstacle then surely you can see it was ill thought out, unless you were expecting the traffic to stop in order for you to complete your overtake.

As I've said before, would you have attempted the same overtake if the line of slow moving traffic was a convoy of caravans, or tractors, or lorries or grannies out for a bimble? If the answer is no then why do you think it acceptable to try the overtake when the line of slow moving traffic happens to be a line of cyclists?

If, if, if. If my grandma had wheels she'd be a car.

I judge each situation on it's merits. in this case there was enough space to overtake, unless someone did something stupid. unfortunately in many miles of driving I have seen many people do some pretty crazy things. So in light of the fact the cyclists did not seem to be paying much attention I just let them know I was there.

In addition it is illegal to race on the highway. Since I don't know that is the case I have not mentioned it as unlike some on here, I don't make things up. But it was a possibility I had considered. If they had decided to suddenly go 3 or more abreast in a sprint finish it could have made the situation dangerous.

Why not sound the horn? Why not alert other road users to your presence? It is the only thing the horn should be used for.

[WinstonWolf]

JagXJR said:

Antony Moxey said:

JagXJR said:

I overtook many vehicles which were approaching an obstruction a quarter of a mile (ish didn't pace it out) away

Why were you attempting an overtake of slow moving traffic if you could see there was an obstacle ahead? Unless you were sure you could complete the overtake before you reached the obstacle then surely you can see it was ill thought out, unless you were expecting the traffic to stop in order for you to complete your overtake.

As I've said before, would you have attempted the same overtake if the line of slow moving traffic was a convoy of caravans, or tractors, or lorries or grannies out for a bimble? If the answer is no then why do you think it acceptable to try the overtake when the line of slow moving traffic happens to be a line of cyclists?

If, if, if. If my grandma had wheels she'd be a car.

I judge each situation on it's merits. in this case there was enough space to overtake, unless someone did something stupid. unfortunately in many miles of driving I have seen many people do some pretty crazy things. So in light of the fact the cyclists did not seem to be paying much attention I just let them know I was there.

In addition it is illegal to race on the highway. Since I don't know that is the case I have not mentioned it as unlike some on here, I don't make things up. But it was a possibility I had considered. If they had decided to suddenly go 3 or more abreast in a sprint finish it could have made the situation dangerous.

Why not sound the horn? Why not alert other road users to your presence? It is the only thing the horn should be used for.

"I don't make things up" Err, you just made the race thing up...

[walm]

These are not comments that refer to a safe overtake.
These are not comments consistent with rule 163.
These are not comments that adhere to the picture I posted.

JagXJR said:

In this case there was enough space to overtake, unless someone did something stupid.

JagXJR said:

it was a bit tight

JagXJR said:

The margin for error was less than I like. I like a lot of margin, what happens if one of them falls off in front of me?

I think your use of the horn was sensible given the idiotic situation you had put yourself in.
The overtake is the issue.
It was ill-thought-out.
You refusing to consider that just perhaps you unnecessarily endangered some very vulnerable road users is just sad.

[Saddle bum]

JagXJR said:

In addition it is illegal to race on the highway. Since I don't know that is the case I have not mentioned it as unlike some on here, I don't make things up. But it was a possibility I had considered. If they had decided to suddenly go 3 or more abreast in a sprint finish it could have made the situation dangerous.

Sorry but: "A cycle race on a public road is prohibited by section 31(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 unless the race is authorised by or under regulations under that section."

How do you think part of the TdF was held in Yorkshire last year?

[walm]

JagXJR said:

In addition it is illegal to race on the highway. Since I don't know that is the case I have not mentioned it as unlike some on here, I don't make things up. But it was a possibility I had considered. If they had decided to suddenly go 3 or more abreast in a sprint finish it could have made the situation dangerous.

So you are following these guys.
You think - "they might be in a race and could go 3-up at any time."
"Better overtake just before some parked cars then."

This is not the thinking of a good driver.

[JagXJR]

Rich_W said:

JustinF said:

Rich, I have to agree with 95% of your post, but there is a huge positive that shines out from this'troll bait' thread and the cauldron the is GG in general... Stick your head above the parapet and declare your inability to deal with other road users safely, expect to have it rightfully dispatched.

It doesn't change anything though. Jag matey will NEVER admit he was wrong. No matter how many people post and try and engage with him to see the error of his ways.

We have a 17yo at work with the same attitude. Never wrong. Lies often. In the end you just have to think "" and leave him to it. Meh

Johnnytheboy said:

Perhaps the mods could start by weeding out posters who can't contribute to a thread without getting all potty-mouthed...

Weeding out. I see what you did there florist.

Potty mouthed or not. I like to think it was relevant and the fact I swore doesn't really change that does it? Funny given I can normally prove a point using a pretty broad vocabulary. I guess todays not the day.

Of course IF you are one of the aforementioned fkwits who can't drive properly then I guess my opinion of you isn't that high to start with.

If of course you can drive around the country without getting annoyed by other road users or feeling the need to post on multiple cycling bashing threads then you have my apologies.

If...

No he wont because in this instance he wasn't! He did everything correctly and got abuse for it

Despite how many people badger bait him and turn and twist his words. Despite people inventing and making things up. Despite people swearing at him and call him names.

Some people really need to learn some manners and sense. Hopefully before they do something stupid in front of someone who is not watching their surroundings like I do, and injures or kills them. (I include all road users here, but especially vulnerable ones).

Sadly by the attitude on here and on the roads, the car nage will continue as some people think they have a Shield Of Right (by right I mean their right to do as they like, not that the cyclists I called muppets were right) cloaking them.

[Finlandia]

thelawnet said:

The seatbelt analogy isn't a good one. There is lots of compelling evidence about the efficacy of seatbelts. There isn't for helmets.

According to Folksam in Sweden: Each year, about 2,000 cyclists are injured, as expected, the most dangerous injury is a head injury. Statistics from real accidents shows in black and white that bicycle helmets are of utmost importance. Two of three head injuries can be avoided by wearing a helmet.

http://www.folksam.se/testergodarad/sakeritrafiken...

[Johnnytheboy]

Rich_W said:

Johnnytheboy said:

I love the logical fallacy that anyone that disagrees with some of the posts from a cycling perspective is automatically a bad driver, sorry 'fkwit'. I hesitate to use the term "strawman" is it's a bit 'forum', but it's going in that direction.

If you can't negotiate past a cyclist, safely whilst adhering to the highway code or law. Then Yes, you are a fkwit. There's no middle ground here Either you can or you can't. Ask yourself which one you category you fall into.

I don't need to. You've missed my point, or have tried to disguise it in to a qualification. Do you believe that anyone that argues with you is by definition a bad driver? It would be like saying anyone that wants gun control laws can't shoot, or vegetarians can't cook meat. It doesn't make any sense!

In fact, if someone feels strongly enough to write about something on the internet it must be something they care about, so it probably is something they try and do well. Doesn't matter how many times this old chestnut comes up and I repeat that I always treat cyclists with all the courtesy I can, the same lazy old accusation gets wheeled out: I don't like cyclists blaming drivers for everything, therefore I must be a bad driver.

Rich_W said:

Johnnytheboy said:

One might equally argue that failing to ride a bike without getting annoyed by other road users, or feel the need to post about it on a car forum makes you a bad cyclist. But I wouldn't do that because it would be a daft generalisation. But at the least the reciprocal point's established.

...s...wky...gobstes...wky...whiney...etc

Ok, I get your point, you can't ride a bike without getting annoyed at other road users. Maybe - by your logic - you're just not that good at it? See? It makes no sense!

Rich_W said:

Johnnytheboy said:

Plus, along with Yonex earlier in the thread, top marks for trying to base an insult on someone's profile. Always classy...

If you didn't want people to know you are a florist. Why would you put it on your profile Darling? x

If I wanted people to know I was a florist, I suppose I'd put that I was a florist.

[walm]

JagXJR said:

He did everything correctly and got abuse for it

JagXJR earlier today:

[Johnnytheboy]

walm said:

Can I commend the admirable restraint of posters in getting this far through this thread without posting this picture?

Can we have the one with the lady with the nice bottom next?

[walm]

Johnnytheboy said:

Can I commend the admirable restraint of posters in getting this far through this thread without posting this picture?

Can we have the one with the lady with the nice bottom next?

So what is your view Johnny - good or bad driving from JagXJR?

Anything he might possibly take away from it other than cyclists are abusive?

Also, which nice bottom?

[Johnnytheboy]

walm said:

So what is your view Johnny - good or bad driving from JagXJR?

Anything he might possibly take away from it other than cyclists are abusive?

Also, which nice bottom?

I've given up on the rest of the thread tbh, I'm just answering answers to mine now.

I concluded a year or so ago that anyone whose username refers to a UK make or model of car seems to be a loon, and I give their posts a wide berth.

There used to be a pic trotted out about when it was ok not to pass a cyclist, featuring a lady in very tight shorts. Livened up many an angry cyclist thread.

[JagXJR]

Rich_W said:

................


But the majority are fine..................

If you didn't want people to know you are a florist. Why would you put it on your profile Darling? x

Amongst the insulting and ridiculous piffle you came out with, these 2 are the most laughable.

The first as it is untrue and the second because you just proved their point

[wolves_wanderer]

Johnnytheboy said:

There used to be a pic trotted out about when it was ok not to pass a cyclist, featuring a lady in very tight shorts. Livened up many an angry cyclist thread.

This one?